On 11/11/06, Tim Hochberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
No telling what compiler optimizations might do with '!(a >= b)' if they assume that '!(a >= b)' == 'a < b'. For instance,
if !(a >= b)
do something;
else
do otherwise;
might branch to the second statement on 'a <b' and fall through to the first otherwise.
Chuck
Robert Kern wrote:
<snip>
My preference would be to raise an error / warning when there is a nan
in the array. Technically, there is no minimum value when a nan is
present. I believe that this would be feasible be swapping the compare
from 'a < b' to '!(a >= b)'. This should return NaN if any NaNs are
present and I suspect the extra '!' will have minimal performance impact
but it would have to be tested. Then a warning or error could be issued
on the way out depending on the erstate. Arguably returning NaN is more
correct than returning the smallest non NaN anyway.
No telling what compiler optimizations might do with '!(a >= b)' if they assume that '!(a >= b)' == 'a < b'. For instance,
if !(a >= b)
do something;
else
do otherwise;
might branch to the second statement on 'a <b' and fall through to the first otherwise.
Chuck
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/numpy-discussion
